Evolving medical management of erectile dysfunction: recommendations from the Fifth International Consultation on Sexual Medicine (ICSM 2024)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Treatment of erectile dysfunction is based on pharmacotherapy for most patients. AIM: To review the current data on pharmacotherapy for erectile dysfunction based on efficacy, psychosocial outcomes, and safety outcomes. METHODS: A review of the literature was undertaken by the committee members. All related articles were critically analyzed and discussed, and consensus statements were developed after presentation at the 2024 ICSM. RESULTS: Eight recommendations are provided with the corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The management of erectile dysfunction should be personalized to address the psychosocial needs and expectations of both the patient and their partner. PDE5 inhibitors remain the first-line treatment for most men, while intracavernosal injections, vacuum erection devices, and penile prostheses serve as second-line options, with treatment decisions guided by patient preferences. Key recommendations are summarized in table 1.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it